Returning Porschephile, the daily driver conundrum, Pt. 1

[thstone]

Welcome back!

996's are great cars, I really enjoyed the time with the one that I had. Its too bad that Porsche never offered the 986 with the 300hp 3.4L motor - that would have been a lot of fun.

I had an NB Miata and it was a great car. But I'd take a 986 over a Miata every time.

[Retroman1969]

Thank you guys so much for the welcomes and your input. I’ve actually never driven a Miata but only sat in a couple of them. I plan on driving at least a few before going into final shopping mode to be sure. As a high mileage runner I know that the Miata would be more practical in longevity and maintenance costs, the Boxster in comfort and utility.... did I just call a Boxster a utilitarian vehicle? LOL, I guess for a sports car, it is. But then I guess that’s what Porsche is known for: daily-driverable “exotic” cars.
I know Miata is no slouch in bang for the buck though.
I do already have long working relationship with a good Porsche shop and they will be brutally honest on PPIs, so that also helps.

[Retroman1969]

Honestly, I also have fond memories of past adventures, and testing the durability of a 986-era Porsche.










It lasted to 176,000 miles doing this, and if it had a manual shift, I might still be driving it. (although I probably would have had to do an engine by this point as it would have 300,000 miles on it).
It still drove like new when I sold it, but it was expensive to keep it in top tune for this. I think the total for repairs and maintenance during that 2.5 years ran something around $9,000.
To be fair, much of that was getting it in shape in the first place. It was a Southside 1 paycheck (okay, 2 paycheck) beater after all.

[Retroman1969]

I’ve always loved the RX7, but never enough to own/maintain one.

[husker boxster]

People love to project today's reliability and longevity onto cars from their youth and conveniently and nostalgically forget the tinkering that was required to keep them going back in the day. It used to be we'd get rid of a car at 75K mi b/c they'd be shot at 100K mi. Today, 75K mi is just broken in and parts are designed to go 150K mi before needing replacement. Not true with cars from the 60s, 70s, or 80s plus your dealing with electrical parts among others that are 30 to 50 yrs old. You certainly have back-up vehicles available, but you want a reliable daily driver.

[Retroman1969]

Hey guys! Thank you! Good to see you again, been quite awhile.
I do agree with your rant huxter! One does tend to forget, but I remember the cars I drove in high school and college, and they were always getting unreliable by 90,000 to 100,000 miles, and were usually towed to the scrapyard by 130,000 miles. If I sit down and think, I remember clogged jets, stuck chokes, burned points, leaky vacuum lines on distributors, cracked distributor caps, bad coils, water pumps, master cylinders and alternators that only lasted 25,000 miles between replacements, A/C systems that went dead by the car’s 3rd year, frequent tune ups needed or they would run like garbage, 2,500 mile oil change and lube intervals, etc, etc...
By comparison, the 176,000 relatively hassle free miles I got out of the last Boxster begins to look like a miracle... all that time and not one legitimate breakdown.
My 240,000 mile Toyota that flat refuses to ever need anything and I can still drive to Canada tomorrow, or my 74,000 mile 911 that still drives like brand new. We can definitely get spoiled.